History deals
with the sum of the events that happened in the past. It should be studied in
order to understand the present. Today’s reality in Cyprus is influenced by
history. It directs our attitudes and preferences. In this context, an
awareness of history, the way the history is written, and the teaching of
history are crucial. As Cypriots, how much do we know about the history of our
country and the history of the inter-communal relations?
The
emergence of Greek and Turkish nationalisms in Cyprus
When the British
occupied the island of Cyprus in 1878, ending a 300-year period of Ottoman rule
that had begun in 1571, they preferred to keep the existing structures of
education in Cyprus. Christian and Moslem schools were kept separate from one
another. There were two Boards of Education, one Christian and the other Moslem.
They ensured that the curriculums of the two communities mirrored those in Greece
and Turkey respectively. The Greek Orthodox community was educated by teachers
who had mainly graduated from Greece educational institutions and the
educational system was under the control of the Greek Orthodox Church of
Cyprus. At the request of the Cyprus Government, the headmaster of the only
lyceum in Nicosia was always sent from Istanbul. They were all Turkish
nationalists. The Boards also prescribed the books to be used in the schools,
insisting that the history textbooks were written in the so-called motherlands.
As a result, the books emphasised the conflicts between Greece and Turkey,
which fought against each other in 1821, resulting in Greece’s independence
from the Ottoman Empire, and again in 1921, when Turkish Army defeated the
Greek troops that had invaded Western Anatolia, leading to the formation in the
Republic of Turkey in 1923. Both events therefore influenced the Moslem Turkish
and the Christian Greek community in Cyprus. This was particularly the case
with Turkish nationalism, which had developed during the national struggle to liberate
the Ottoman Empire from occupation by imperial powers. Though it developed
almost a century after Greek nationalism, this Turkish nationalism became influential
among the Moslem Turkish population in Cyprus after the military defeat of the
Greek occupation of Western Anatolia.
As well as
through the schools, Turkish nationalism was disseminated in Cyprus by the
Turkish Cypriot press, which followed the example of the mainland Turkish press,
as well as through the activities of the Turkish Consulate on the island, which
was opened after the foundation of the Turkish Republic. Meanwhile, the Greek
Cypriots also pursued their own nationalism. They aimed to bring about the
union of the island with Greece; a demand often put before the Legislative
Council, which had been established by the British in 1879. The Turkish Cypriot
members of the parliament used to resist these demands by saying that the
island should be returned to the original owner, Turkey. However, following the
annexation of Cyprus by the British Empire in 1914, Turkey gave up all of her
rights on Cyprus when it signed the Treaty of Lausanne Agreement, in 1923. This
was confirmed in 1925, when Britain declared Cyprus to be a Crown Colony – a
status it retained until 1960.
The nationalism
of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots did not originate from local historical circumstances,
but was imported to the island through the teachers, books and newspapers that
came from mainland Greece and Turkey. This nationalism was encouraged by the
British colonial administration and the British tried to disseminate it among
the unaware masses of people in accordance to their traditional policy of
‘divide and rule’.
The
consolidation of nationalisms
When the Greek
Cypriots started a terror campaign in 1955 to end British colonial
administration, the Turkish Cypriot leadership collaborated with the British
and provoked the Greek Cypriots by recommending the Turkish Cypriot youth to
become auxiliary police and commandoes in order to fight the Greek Cypriot
fighters, thereby defending the colonialists. Thereafter, as the Greek Cypriot
EOKA (National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters) underground organisation
killed Turkish Cypriot security forces, the Turkish Cypriot TMT underground organisation
began to kill Greek Cypriots in retaliation. As both organisations were anti-communist,
they also killed progressive Cypriots who were against the partitionist
policies of the British and their local collaborators. The growing demand of
the Greek Cypriots for the union of the island with Greece (enosis) was
encountered with the demand of the Turkish Cypriots for the partition (taksim)
of the island between Turkey and Greece.
Finally, neither
the Greek Cypriots’ objective of union nor the Turkish Cypriots’ aim of
partition materialised. Instead, a limited independence was given to a new
partnership, the Republic of Cyprus, which was established in 1960. The British
maintained their sovereignty over the two military bases and the island was
declared an independent state, banning both enosis and taksim in its
constitution. The Turkish Cypriots, with 18 per cent of the island’s population
were given 30 per cent say in the administration of the new Republic of Cyprus.
This was strongly opposed by the Greek Cypriots. In December1963, the President
of the Republic, Archbishop Makarios, tried to change the 13 points of the
constitution by abolishing the veto power of the Turkish Cypriot Vice-President
Dr Fazil Kuchuk. Inter-communal clashes began and, at the beginning of 1964,
the Turkish Cypriots withdrew from the state apparatus. This conflict of
nationalisms between the pro-enosis Greek Cypriot leadership and the
pro-partition Turkish Cypriot leadership complicated the solution of the
ethnic-national question in Cyprus. The unity of action and aim of the Cypriots
could not be developed under a common shared aim and this caused new
bitterness.
Meanwhile, those
who sought to promote coexistence were silenced. In 1958, Turkish Cypriot trade
unionists started to come under attack. In 1962, two prominent lawyers, Ahmet
Muzaffer Gurkan and Ayhan Hikmet, founders of the ‘Cumhuriyet’ weekly
newspaper, which advocated cooperation between the two main communities of new Cyprus
state, were murdered. In 1965, Dervis Ali Kavazoglu, a Turkish Cypriot
communist trade-unionist, was murdered by the Turkish Cypriot underground
organization TMT (Turkish Resistance Organisation). These actions of
intimidation silenced the democratic opposition within the Turkish Cypriot
community, which was fighting against the partitionist policy of the Turkish
Cypriot leadership. As a result, the separatist policy that the Turkish Cypriot
leadership had pursued since 1958 was one of the reasons that Turkish Cypriots
and Greek Cypriots did not have a common political aim during the
inter-communal negotiations that began in 1968.
From 1968 until
1974, various rounds of inter-communal negotiations were carried out, ending
with a coup d’état by mainland Greek Army officers against Makarios, on 15 July
1974. This was followed by the invasion of the island by the mainland Turkish
Army, on 20 July 1974. Together with Great Britain, Greece and Turkey were
supposed to be the guarantor powers of the independence, sovereignty and the
territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot leadership
unilaterally declared independence in 1983, forming the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus, on the Turkish occupied territory of the island; a move that was
immediately condemned by the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, in the Turkish
Cypriot textbooks of Cyprus history, the Turkish invasion in 1974 was described
as an act of salvation. In contrast, Greek Cypriot students were taught nothing
about the events between 1963 and 1974. The struggle for the union of the
island with Greece during 1955-59 was portrayed as a struggle for the
independence of the island. The Turkish Cypriots were ignored and excluded.
As imperialist
foreign powers were against the independent development of the Republic of
Cyprus, which followed an independent non-aligned foreign policy, they
continuously incited nationalistic and anti-communist feelings among the
island’s population. Yet again, a Cypriot awareness could not be developed to a
sufficient degree. The guarantors of the independence, sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Cyprus were members of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation) and did not want to see a Cypriot state free from their
influence. That is why they still do whatever they can to prevent the
development of independent internal political and cultural structures.
Challenging
nationalist histories
In order to draw
useful lessons for the future, we have to have a good knowledge of our history
and a multi-perspective approach to our past without any prejudice. For this
purpose, it is necessary to have well-educated historians; rich archives open
for all; multi-communal platforms, where everything can be discussed freely;
and a democratic environment free from all taboos. Without all these, it would
be very difficult to bring historical realities to light. Even then, it cannot
be said that the Cypriot communities are likely to be at ease discussing these
subjects.
History has to
play a unifying, rather than a discriminatory role between the nations and
communities. In the nationalist way of history-writing, the writer chooses ‘we’
in every stage of history and sees ‘the others’ as enemy. Seeing those from his
nationality as different from and superior to others is the minimum
characteristic of the nationalist history-writers. Some writers state this in a
hard form. Others take a softer approach. But what is seen in all the
nationalist history writers is seeing their own nation state as superior and
defending, if necessary, the interests of their own nation at the expense of
the others. This way of looking at history and commentating on the past is a
dominant characteristic in various stages of writing official history and in
the development of a nation state.
The review of textbooks
and history teaching with multilateral and international efforts is a very long
and much tiring process. Efforts to produce new models for text-books in
European countries as well as in Turkey, Greece and the Balkans are being
conducted by non-governmental bodies, historians and social scientists. In this
respect, it would be very valuable to form a common committee of the Turkish
Cypriot and Greek Cypriot historians which could try to achieve an
interpretation of the common history of the communities living in Cyprus. I can
name some subjects to be discussed and researched by such a Committee: the
common rebellions during the Ottoman Occupation against the local governor’s
arbitrary taxations; the common struggles in the Legislative Council during the
British colonial rule related with the economic policy; the common struggles of
the trade-union movement, which was united until 1958; the common struggle of
the Cypriots against fascism during the World War II on the side of the Allied
Forces.
Since 1974, the
influx of mainland Turkish settlers in the occupied areas of Cyprus, which is
contrary to the Geneva Convention, has been a threat to the existence of the
Turkish Cypriots. This has led many of them to reassess their communal identity.
Turkish Cypriot intellectuals, in particular, have started to ask themselves
the question ‘Who are we?’ and ‘How can we preserve our own identity?’ as they have
looked into the history of their cultural heritage. Cultural, scientific and
the literary heritage are three important components of the national
consciousness. Here we see the responsibility of historical researchers for the
development of a common Cypriot consciousness. They have to research the common
cultural heritage of the island and use these common elements for a common
political aim. The various examples of cooperation between the two communities
in the commercial and social life and in trade- union movement in the past are
good examples of the coexistence of the two main communities in Cyprus. This
highlights the degree to which the class character of the state has a big role
to play in the formation of the Cypriot consciousness. There has to be a
clearly designed state policy for the support of a Cypriot identity. The organs
of the mass media should also play a constructive role in this respect since
they can easily reach the homes of almost all citizens.
Conclusion
Over the past century and a half two
different identities have emerged in Cyprus. Since 1974, these have been
consolidated. Today, one is North of the divide. This holds the separatist TRNC
as an expression of the nationalist identity of the Turkish Cypriots. The other
is in the South of the divide. This views itself as the sole owner of the
Cypriot state, which has distinctively an Orthodox Greek Cypriot character. To
combat this, there needs to be an effort to challenge the separate histories
told by the two communities. However, it needs to go further than this. There
also need to be common political parties of Turkish Cypriots and the Greek
Cypriots, seeking common political aims. The New Cyprus Association, which was
formed in March 1975, aimed to preserve the existence of the state of Cyprus
and avert the danger of permanent partition by encouraging people to behave
first as Cypriots and then as a member of their respective community.
Unfortunately, during the past 37 years, this movement of intellectuals was
unable to become a political movement that could organise Turkish Cypriots and
Greek Cypriots under a common Cypriot identity. Nevertheless, the full equality
of all the communities living on the island in the fields of politics, economy
and culture can only be achieved through common political parties that will
fight for a democratic federal state and against all kinds of separatism and
discrimination. As the Turkish-Cypriot Coordinator of the Bi-communal Movement
for an Independent and Federal Cyprus, which was formed in 1989, I fought for 11
years to win a case against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights, in
February 2003 (Djavit An v. Turkey, 20652/92) for depriving me of my freedom of
assembly due to my efforts to promote greater contacts between the two
communities in Cyprus. My experiences since then have showed me that all
Cypriots who want to see a reunited island should organise themselves and fight
for the same goal: ending the occupation and the colonisation of the Northern
part of our island by Turkey and forming a democratic federal state through
power sharing. Policies are needed to solve the problem of nationalities.
Rather, a single Cypriot nationality is needed. This can only be done by
challenging the historical presentation of the past and promoting political
cooperation in the present.
References and
recommended reading
1. An, Ahmet, An Overview of the Research
Studies on the Identity of the Turkish Cypriots, in “Articles on the Turkish
Cypriot Culture”, Nicosia 1999, p.222-230, (in Turkish)
2. An, Ahmet, The Political History
of the Turkish Cypriots (1930-1960): The Forgotten Political History of the
Turkish Cypriots and the Struggles for the Leadership in the Mirror of the
Press, Nicosia 2006 (in Turkish)
3. Attalides, Michael, Cyprus, Nationalism and International
Politics (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1979)
4.
European Court of Human
Rights, Djavit An v. Turkey (application no. 20652/92)
5. Worsley, Peter and Pashalis Kitromilides (eds), Small States in
the Modern World (Nicosia: The New Cyprus Association, 1979)
(This
contribution by Ahmet An was included in the book “Resolving Cyprus: New Approaches
to Conflict Resolution” edited by James Ker-Lindsay, published by I.B. Tauris,
London 2015, pp.24-30)
